Click on the image below to view our Christmas greeting.

The ill-conceived auto industry bailout bill passed in the US House last week, but was rightly rejected by the US Senate. Special interests aren’t giving up, however. Now they are looking for huge handouts from the Treasury Secretary and the White House. While this situation is being portrayed as a bailout of the auto industry, it is, in fact, a ploy designed to delay the inevitable implosion of the unsustainable United Auto Workers (UAW) union contract demands.

This bailout will only temporarily prop up UAW’s dysfunctional relationship with the auto companies. Union contracts with the manufacturers that require paying 700,000 people nearly full wages for not working plus the extraordinary legacy costs of health care and pensions have crippled US automakers’ finances. Reports indicate that GM currently looses $326 for each car that rolls-off the end of its assembly line while Toyota makes a profit of $1266 per vehicle it sells.

UAW contracts have effectively killed the “golden goose”, so now they are demanding “golden eggs” from American taxpayers. The proposed bailout would only delay the inevitable and at significant cost. Today’s US automaker business model is simply not sustainable. The only chance to rescue the US auto industry is to allow companies to enter bankruptcy, restructure and emerge leaner, stronger and more competitive.

The money demanded for the bailout doesn’t even exist. What’s being proposed is massive deficit spending. When the government creates money from thin air, everyone’s dollars are devalued. Government bailouts are stealing wealth from American families.

TAKE ACTION: Click here to send a message to President Bush and Treasury Secretary Paulson demanding that they not use money from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to be used to bailout the auto industry.

The day before the election, I had an opportunity to purchase a used canoe. After completing the transaction, I loaded the 30-year-old boat atop my SUV and headed to city hall. I had called the Department of Natural Resources earlier that day to find-out what I needed to do once I had made the purchase. I was told that since this was the first time the boat was to be registered in my name, I would need to appear in-person with the bill-of-sale at a Deputy Registrar’s office.

When I arrived at city hall, the Registrar asked for my driver’s license and the boat’s hull identification number. The Registrar then entered this information into a computer system which immediately verified its accuracy. The system indicated that the hull number was already registered under another person’s name. But after some investigation, the Registrar determined the prior registration was no longer active. After giving the Registrar a check for $24, I was provided with a watercraft registration card and a permit that I was required to affix to the hull of the canoe. The whole process took less than 10 minutes.

The next day, while waiting in line at the polls to vote, I observed a long line of people waiting to complete same-day voter registrations. While some people were using driver’s licenses to confirm their identity, I noticed an individual who appeared to be using the “vouching” process. Vouching is a provision in Minnesota law that allows an individual to register on Election Day by simply having someone from the precinct confirm his or her identity and residence. I watched as the individual filled-out a paper registration card and then was immediately provided with a ballot to cast their vote. There was no verification by election officials that the information provided on the registration card was, in fact, accurate.

I began to compare and contrast the process I had experienced the day before to register my canoe with the process being used for same-day voter registrations. When registering the canoe, I was asked to produce my driver’s license to confirm my identity. In same-day voter registrations, the applicant is not required to produce any form of photographic identification. When registering a canoe, the Registrar entered my information into a computer system that performed a real-time verification to confirm its accuracy. In same-day voter registrations, the voter’s registration information is recorded on a paper card which is not entered into a computer system until several weeks after the election. Same-day registrations are supposedly “verified” using a 30-year-old process of mailing a post card to the address listed on the registration card. If the post card is returned as being “undeliverable”, the voter’s registration record is supposed to be flagged so the voter can be “challenged” at the next election. If the voter registration is fraudulent, however, there is no way to “undo” the fraudulent vote, since the fraudulent ballot was counted together with all the valid ballots on Election Day.

A review of Minnesota’s voter registration rolls prior to this year’s election revealed over 100,000 voter registrations with addresses that are considered to be either “vacant” or “undeliverable” by the United States Postal Service. The post card verification process that was implemented prior to the availability of computer systems is obviously sorely lacking.

It is amazing how vulnerable Minnesota’s election process is to voter fraud. Any person desiring to vote more than once in a single election would simply need to find someone to vouch for their identity in a different precinct on Election Day. A person could also easily cast multiple ballots by posing as another registered voter. Since the Secretary of State does not do a timely job of flagging the registrations of the deceased persons and individuals who have moved, a dishonest person could simply obtain a list of these voter registration records and travel from precinct-to-precinct casting multiple ballots by representing themselves as these individuals.

All of this begs the simply question as to why Minnesota puts more of a priority on securing the process for registering an old canoe than on securing its voter registration process. The technology is readily available to perform real-time verification of voter registrations. But some politicians have resisted attempts to implement these controls, claiming that they would “intimidate” or “disenfranchise” some voters. This is complete nonsense. The only reason someone would favor a process with known deficiencies is that they know illegal voting is occurring and they want it to continue. Minnesota voters deserve a voter registration process that is as least as secure as the process used to register a boat.

Marriage amendments passed in all three states in which it was on the ballot. The citizens of Florida, Arizona and California all agree that marriage should be exclusively defined as the union of one man and one woman. This brings the total to 30 states that have now amended their state constitutions to protect marriage.

The decision in California unwinds an earlier State Supreme Court decision which ordered the state to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Activist courts in Massachusetts and Connecticut have also imposed same-sex ‘marriage’ upon the citizens of their states.

Efforts to pass a bill which would allow the citizens of Minnesota to vote on a marriage amendment have been repeatedly defeated in the DFL-controlled state legislature. This has left Minnesota vulnerable to an attempt to legalize same-sex 'marriage' through the courts or a renegade legislature.

Secretary of State Mark Ritchie employing intimidation tactics in an attempt to suppress investigation of voter registration irregularities.

Yesterday afternoon Secretary of State Mark Ritchie called a press conference alleging that Jean Sanford, a volunteer with Minnesota Majority, had inappropriately contacted a voter representing herself as working with the Secretary of State. Secretary Ritchie further asserted that the volunteer from Minnesota Majority was engaged in voter intimidation tactics.

"The complaint is completely frivolous and Mark Ritchie knows it," said Jeff Davis, President of Minnesota Majority.  In a sworn affidavit given today by Jean Sanford, she contradicts the voter's complaint.  Sanford said that she never represented herself as being associated with the Secretary of State.

“Jean is a sweet little grandma who is passionate about transparency in elections,” said Davis, “The voter’s own sworn statement indicates that he found Mrs. Sanford to be very kind. I can’t imagine how anyone could be intimidated by this lady.” Minnesota Majority believes that the voter, above all else, was concerned by the amount of information that is maintained on Minnesota’s public voter registration records.

"Mark Ritchie's actions are simply a ruse to deflect attention away from the real issue at hand – the obvious problems with Minnesota’s voter registration records," said Davis.  Minnesota Majority has been investigating apparent irregularities in the Secretary of State’s voter registration records for several days and has uncovered a large number of anomalies including: 

• POTENTIAL DUPLICATE VOTER REGISTRATION RECORDS: A total of 16,578 exact voter registration record matches using the criteria of first name, middle name, last name and birth year. When phone number is used instead of middle name as a matching criterion, there are a total of 488 matching records.
• VACANT AND NON-DELIVERABLE ADDRESSES: A total of 29,006 voters have a voter registration address which is flagged as being “vacant” by the United States Postal Service. A total of 62,822 voters list an address which is flagged as being “non-deliverable” by the Postal Service.
• DEFICIENT VOTER REGISTRATIONS DUE TO MISSING BIRTH YEAR: There are a total of 1,695 voter registrations with registration dates after August 1, 1983 when birth date was required by law.
• VOTER REGISTERING BEFORE THE AGE OF 18: Over 1,800 records have a voter registration date and a birth year that suggests the voter registered before the age of 18 years of age (some before they were born).
• VOTERS POTENTIALLY CASTING MORE THAN ONE BALLOT IN A SINGLE ELECTION: 76 cases in which it appears that a single voter may have cast more than one ballot, with thousands of additional records which merit additional review.

Volunteers have been researching these apparent discrepancies by taking photographs of vacant lots at addresses listed on voter registrations and telephoning individuals who appear to have duplicate voter registration records.  When contacting people by phone, volunteers give people their name, identify themselves as being with Minnesota Majority and ask the individual to verify their address.

Minnesota Majority suspects that Secretary of State Ritchie may be trying to use the power of his office to suppress further investigation. "The citizens of Minnesota should be very concerned when a public official exploits the power of his office to attack a private citizen who is simply trying to ask questions," said Davis.  "We are not deterred by Secretary of State Ritchie’s tactics. We have not done anything wrong. No one should be intimidated by our research, unless of course an individual was contemplating committing voter fraud." 

Minnesota Majority's attorney has submitted a letter to Mr. Ritchie asking him to immediately present all evidence pertaining to the false allegations.  Legal counsel is also exploring what, if any, improprieties may have been committed by Mr. Ritchie or members of his office in the process of bringing this complaint.

While nearly every Twin Cities media outlet was happy to report on Ritchie's false allegations on Wednesday, only a few media outlets attended today's press conference to get Minnesota Majority's side of the story (kudos to the Star Tribune for being one of the few that actually published a story). 

TAKE ACTION:  Contact Secretary of State Mark Ritchie and tell him what you think about his actions.  Write a letter to the editor and let them know what you think about the media's obvious bias in covering this story.

Yesterday, October 21, Minnesota Majority finally received an official written reply to our October 16 letter to the Secretary of State regarding inconsistencies we discovered in the state's voter file. We found the letter, authored by Deputy Secretary of State Jim Gelbmann, to be dismissive of our concerns. For example, Mr. Gelbmann claimed not to understand what we meant by the definition of a "vacant" address.  He also said the Secretary of State does not remove deceased individuals from active voter rolls until at least two elections cycles have passed in which the individual did not vote.  Are they concerned about disenfranchising dead voters? 

Today Minnesota Majority responded to the Deputy's letter by submitting a second letter requesting a comprehensive validation of the Minnesota voter file.  In our second letter we included the results of additional analysis which suggests that there may be thousands of duplicate voter registration records on the voter file and possible instances of voter fraud.

TAKE ACTION:  Contact Secretary of State Mark Ritchie and ask him to complete a comprehensive verification of Minnesota's voter file prior to this year's election.

There may have been a time when a voter could confidently know that a Democrat would stand for one thing and a Republican another, but that certainly isn’t the case anymore. Former Democrat Senator Joe Lieberman spoke on Senator John McCain’s behalf at the Republican National Convention. Republican Senator Norm Coleman was a Democrat as mayor of St. Paul. Even conservative Republican icon Ronald Reagan was once a Democrat. Minnesota Majority’s 2007-2008 Legislative Scorecard ranked some House Republicans lower than some Democrats on traditional values issues. That’s why it’s more important than ever to know where the candidates stand and be prepared to vote based on principles instead of just blind party loyalty.

To help voters understand where the candidates stand on the issues, Minnesota Majority launched a new election awareness campaign called “Vote Your Values Minnesota”. The campaign was introduced with a new metro-area billboard featuring an undecided voter facing a choice between party and principle. The billboard directs people to the website, VoteYourValuesMN.org which includes a collection of resources to assist voters get informed this election season. Visitors to the site will find their legislators’ voting record, tools to find their polling place, getting registered to vote and information about the candidates on the ballot in their district among other things. A number of competitive House races are also spotlighted with side-by-side candidate comparisons on a variety of traditional values issues.

Minnesota Majority has prepared a one of the most comprehensive legislative scorecards available that assesses how well incumbents have represented "traditional values" positions on the issues in the state legislature. We tracked over 40 votes during the 2007-2008 legislative sessions, spanning a wide range of issues including taxes, government spending, parental rights, property rights, health care, education and energy policy. In many ways, these votes represent the front-line in the battle to defend traditional values in Minnesota’s public policy.

Five legislators earned a perfect 100% score and were our top “Heroes”.

The Heroes
Bruce Anderson District 19A 100%	Mark Buesgens District 35B 100%	Tom Emmer District 19B 100%	Steve Drazkowski District 28B 100%	Kurt Zellers District 32B 100%

 An additional 23 House members receive an honorable mention for supporting “traditional values” positions 90% of the time or better.

Honorable Mentions
Tom Hackbarth, District 48A, 98% Mary Holberg, District 36A, 98% Mark Olson, District 16B, 98% Ron Shimanski, District 18A, 98% Michael Beard, District 35A, 98% Laura Brod, District 25A, 95% Matt Dean, District 52B, 95% Chris DeLaForest, District 49A, 95% Bob Dettmer, District 52A, 95% Rob Eastlund, District 17A, 95% Sondra Erickson, District 16A, 95% Paul Kohls, District 34A, 95%	Marty Seifert, District 21A, 95% Brad Finstad, District 21B, 94% Steve Gottwalt, District 15A, 93% Torrey Westrom, District 11A, 93% Dan Severson, District 14A, 93% Joyce Peppin, District 32A, 93% Joe Hoppe, District 34B, 93% Pat Garofalo, District 36B, 90% Erik Paulsen, District 42B, 90% Dean Simpson, District 10B, 90% Steve Sviggum, District 28B, 90%

On the opposite side of the fence we have our “Zeros” – legislators who more often than not voted against the interests of everyday Minnesotans. Instead, these House members supported policies that would raise your taxes, expand government and reduce your freedoms. A total of 9 House members were perfect “Zeros”.  

The Zeros
Margaret Kelliher District 60A 0%	Willy Dominguez District 58B 0%	Frank Hornstein District 60B 0%	Carlos Mariani District 65B 0%	Cy Thao  District 65A 0%
Alice Hausman District 66B 0%	Neva Walker District 61B 0%	Sheldon Johnson District 67B 0%	Karen Clark District 61A 0%

 An additional 18 members receive a “dishonorable mention" for scoring 5% or less.

Dishonorable Mentions
Erin Murphy, District 64A, 5% Diane Loeffler, District 59A, 5% Carolyn Laine, District 50A, 5% Melissa Hortman, District 47B, 5% Bill Hilty, District 8A, 5% Mindy Greiling, District 54A, 5% Kathy Brynaert, District 23B, 5% David Bly, District 25B, 5% Jean Wagenius, District 62B, 2%	Tom Tillberry, District 51B, 2% Linda Slocum, District 63B, 2% Mike Nelson, District 46A, 2% Joe Mullery, District 58A, 2% Tim Mahoney, District 67A, 2% Phyllis Kahn, District 59B, 2% Mike Jaros, District 07B, 2% Jim Davnie, District 62A, 2% Lyndon Carlson, District 45B, 2%

TAKE ACTION:  See how your state representative scored by visiting our vote tracking page and enter your zip code at the top of the page.  Contact your legislator and tell him or her how you feel about their score. Help spread the word by distributing copies of our Heroes and Zeros Flyer and a hardcopy version of our Legislative Scorecard in your neighborhood.

The U.S. Senate is scheduled to debate and vote on the Lieberman-Warner "Climate Security Act" (S.2191 / S.3036) next week. This bill effectively imposes a massive hidden tax on carbon emissions through a cap-and-trade scheme.

A Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report estimates the federal government stands to generate an additional $1.2 trillion in revenues over a seven-year period between 2012 and 2018. In addition, the CBO projects private-sector regulatory mandates would amount to more than $90 billion per year from 2012 to 2016.

The bill would result in an enormous expansion in government regulation and mandates, reducing our personal liberties. The Environmental Protection Agency would be charged with the daunting task of establishing emissions allowances for thousands of American manufacturers and electricity generators.  A diagram developed by the Chamber of Commerce reveals the pervasiveness of this new regulation (go here for an explanation of the chart).

A recent Wall Street Journal column concludes the Lieberman-Warner bill would be "the most extensive government reorganization of the American economy since the 1930s." An analysis by the Heritage Foundation estimates a $1.7 trillion to $4.8 trillion loss in U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) between 2010 and 2030. U.S. job losses could exceed 700,000 in 2015 alone. At this same time, American consumers would be faced with dramatic price increases in food and energy, putting a significant strain on family budgets.

The impacts in Minnesota are just as dramatic. Projections for Minnesota indicate we could see over $2 billion loss in Gross State Product , $2.3 billion loss in personal income and a loss of over 55,000 jobs by 2030.  According to the Heritage Foundation, Minnesota is projected to rank #1 in the nation in job losses per capita. 

With energy prices at record highs, the last thing we need is more government regulation that will drive-up the costs of gas, drive jobs out of our state and make us all poorer while special interests line their pockets with the spoils.  But for some reason, Minnesota Senators Amy Klobuchar and Norm Coleman have both decided to co-sponsor this legislation. They need to hear from concerned Minnesotans as soon as possible  A vote on this bill could come in the next several days.

TAKE ACTION:  Visit www.NoCapAndTrade.com to sign a petition and send an urgent message to your elected officials urging them to reject the Lieberman-Warner bill.

Additional Resources:

• OPINION:  Michele Bachman - 'Cap and Trade' more like 'Tax and Trade'
• ARTICLE: Cap and Trade Hits Minnesota the Hardest
• OPINION: Charles Krauthammer - The Radicals are Back, Now Wielding the Environment
• WHITE PAPER: The Economics of America’s Climate Security Act
• POLL: Overwhelming Majority of Americans Oppose Lieberman-Warner Global Warming Proposal
• VIDEO: Cap & Trade's impact on coal industry.
• ARTICLE: Coal-Cap Disaster

The 85th legislature adjourned on Sunday, May 18 and at that very moment, the 2008 election season began. What had originally been four months of highly contentious legislative wrestling is now being portrayed as “one of the most successful sessions in decades.” At Monday’s press conference, legislative leaders from both sides of the aisle flanked the governor and touted the accomplishments of the 2008 session.

The DFL-controlled legislature had an aggressive agenda from the very beginning of the session to raise taxes, increase government spending, expand regulations and implement social engineering programs. While Republican minority leaders fought valiantly to block most of these measures, some caucus members broke ranks with leadership, thereby allowing some of these bills to slip through.

Thankfully, Governor Pawlenty vetoed many bills such as Legalized Gestational Surrogacy, Infant DNA Warehousing and Local Government Domestic Partnerships.  But the governor’s veto of the Transportation bill was overridden by six wayward Republican House members, thereby allowing one of the largest tax increases in Minnesota’s history to be passed into law.

The sound bytes being fed to Minnesotans by the mainstream media don’t begin to tell the whole story behind the 2008 legislative session. Our analysis seeks to separate the hype from the reality, thereby allowing Minnesotans to assess what they really got out of this year’s session.

Hype: A $935 million budget deficit was erased and the budget balanced without raising taxes.

Reality: The budget fix was nothing more than a band-aid and taxes were raised – significantly. Lest we forget, the override of the governor’s transportation bill veto cost us a $6.6 billion tax increase on sales, fuel and vehicle registrations. And if approved by voters this November, Minnesotans will be paying more in state sales taxes to fund arts programs and wildlife habitat.

The final budget deal also included a $125 million tax increase on corporations with foreign operations. This was sold to the public as “closing a corporate loophole,” as if corporations were doing something underhanded. In reality, this provision was enacted by the state legislature years ago to avoid driving corporations with foreign operations out of Minnesota.

Senate Minority Leader David Senjem (R - Rochester) cautioned that the fix relied too heavily on tapping the state's “rainy day” reserve fund and not enough on actual spending cuts. Nearly $500 million needed to balance the budget came from the state’s rainy day fund, tapping about 80% of the fund’s reserves. Senjem predicts the result will be a much worse budget problem in 2009.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hype: A 3.9% property tax cap resulting in $460 million in property tax reductions.

Reality: When does a tax increase become a reduction? When the government doesn’t raise taxes as much as they otherwise would, it’s billed as a tax cut. This is like expecting to gain 30 pounds and stepping on the scale to discover only a 20-pound gain. Using legislative math, that’s a ten-pound weight loss.

Most politicians somehow failed to mention that while they were creating the property tax “cap”, they were simultaneously increasing local government aid by $60 million. This sleight of hand maneuver essentially took taxpayer money out of one pocket and put it in another, thereby diluting the real impact of the property tax “cap”.

The so-called “cap” includes exemptions that allow communities to exceed 3.9%. Local governments can exceed the cap for things like population growth and emergency services. The cap also doesn’t include local school district referendums. And what happens when cities blow their budgets on non-essentials and then need more funding for police and fire departments, or when the cap expires in three years time? This “cap” is really more like an open-top visor. In reality, many Minnesotans will see property tax increases that well exceed 3.9% and their projected “savings” to Minnesota taxpayers will be nowhere near the claimed $460 million.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hype: Nation-leading health care reform that includes increased transparency, pay for performance, e-prescribing and tax credits.

Reality: While there are some positive aspects of the health care bill like greater consumer transparency and electronic prescriptions, its major thrust is to grow government involvement and enroll more families onto state-subsidized health care. Families making up to $57,000 now qualify for state welfare health plans, adding thousands of new people to taxpayer-funded health care. The bill adds insult to injury by offering a bounty to outfits (schools, non-profit groups, insurance brokers, etc) that recruit new dependents to feed at the public trough.

Grants are doled-out to local community health boards (more government bureaucracy) to try to enforce lifestyle changes targeting weight-loss and smoking cessation.

Government bureaucrats are given the power to define “quality,” determine physician compensation incentives based upon this definition and even decide what procedures are medically necessary.

Bottom line: this bill expands government involvement in health care, which will ultimately result in higher costs for patients and taxpayers. Unmet hospital costs resulting from the legislation will mean non-subsidized families will see an increase in their insurance premiums and doctor bills. Taxpayers will pick up the tab for the thousands of new people added to welfare health plans.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hype: The Central Corridor light rail line will ease traffic congestion and improve the environment.

Reality: The Central Corridor line, like the Hiawatha line, will be built at traffic grade, meaning it will significantly interfere with automotive traffic and eliminate most street parking. Delays at intersections will mean more idling vehicles, more congestion, more wasted fuel and more exhaust emissions. For some reason, no study was conducted to compare the rail transit proposal to bus transit for the Central Corridor.

The real reason Minnesota lawmakers allocated $70 million for the Central Corridor this session was that the state was in jeopardy of loosing $450 million in federal funding for the project. Even at that, it begs the question of where the rest of the money is going to come from to build a line that will cost more than $1 billion. The construction costs are just the first installment. Most, if not all, light rail lines across the country operate at a net loss and rely upon significant ongoing taxpayer funding to stay afloat. This means Minnesota taxpayers will have to annually ante-up on this boondoggle project for years to come.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So, in the end, how did everyday Minnesotans really fare out of the session? Our approach to answering this question is to evaluate the session’s results within the context of some of our core values:

Q. Were there any meaningful reductions in government spending?

A. No. Despite this year’s budget deficit, the state legislature actually increased spending by 9.8%. House Minority Leader Rep. Marty Seifert (R – Marshall) said, “It is unfortunate that private sector job growth took a backburner to an expensive and explosive growth in government programs and services.”

Q. Were there reductions in taxes?

A. No, in fact there was a record $6.6 billion tax increase with the transportation bill. And other legislation, like the Green Solutions Act, sets the stage for the implementation of a carbon cap and trade system that will levy a huge tax increase upon all energy consumption in our state in the future.

Q. Were there reductions in the government’s involvement in the lives of everyday citizens?

A. No, in fact there were increases in government involvement in areas like ticket sales, teen drivers and car windows. Creeping socialism was especially evident in the health care legislation with tobacco and weight control funding while building a nice long electronic list for universal health care.

Q. Did the legislature create a more business-friendly environment that would encourage businesses to come to Minnesota?

A. No, in fact they made our business climate less friendly to business. Case in point – Northwest and Delta declined to locate their newly merged corporate headquarters in Minnesota.

Q. Did the legislature pass laws that encouraged greater personal responsibility?

A. No, in fact the state created additional dependents with legislation like the health care bill.

Q. Did the legislature protect our state’s sovereignty by combating the problem of illegal aliens?

A. No. While Governor Pawlenty did issue a number of executive orders strengthening laws to combat illegal aliens, the DFL-controlled legislature resisted all attempts to pass this type of legislation. This is hard to imagine in a year when four innocent children lost their lives as a result of an illegal alien.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Who were the real winners out of this year’s session? Clearly it was the special interests. Folks like the Ghermezian Brothers who can now build their new Mall of America parking lot on the backs of local property owners. Or the construction companies that lobbied hard for the $6.6 billion transportation tax increase that can now line their pockets with the proceeds. And don’t forget the $38 million expansion for the Duluth Entertainment and Convention Center.

The best thing we can say about the 2008 legislative session is that it is finally over. The damage could have been a lot worse, but it also begs the question, “Is this the best that Minnesotans can expect from their elected officials?” In our humble opinion, voters will need to make some dramatic changes in their representation this November if they want to see different outcomes in the next biennium.